TRON Energy/Bandwidth MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds 'active pools' qualifier (filtering behavior) and 'right now' temporal context. Missing: units, caching policy, error behavior when no pools match duration filter, or return structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with action and scope. Second sentence adds purchasing context without waste. No redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists and no annotations provided. Description omits return value structure (totals only? per-pool breakdown? units?) which would be necessary for complete tool selection. Adequate for intent but incomplete for execution.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both resourceType and durationMinutes. Description mentions 'Energy and Bandwidth' and 'pools' which aligns with schema but adds no syntax guidance, format examples, or dependency logic beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear specific verb 'Get' + distinct resources 'Energy and Bandwidth' + scope 'across all active pools'. Distinguishes from sibling buy_energy (action vs. query) and get_pool_stats (availability vs. statistics).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Phrasing 'how much resource can be purchased right now' implies usage context (checking purchase capacity), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives among siblings like estimate_cost or get_pool_stats.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.